E-85 hurts more than it helps

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, I would like to add, cattle grown in this country whether on feed lots or small farms are fed for weight gain. Not any consideration for natural diet. There is a niche market for that but it is not worth mentioning. Also, distillers grain has been fed to livestock for as long as humans have been making beer. Thousands of years.
 
In feeding DDG to animals you will find the same kind of debate about ethanol, some like it some don't. Most people who don't like it are un-educated and just stubborn in their ways. "Old School" is how this attitude is referred to. None-the-less it is studied very thoroughly.

http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/

This is just one link, there are many more Universities doing the same thing.
 
Thank you MC5W20, you said everything I would like to have said about E85 -- I'm just not smart enough to put it in to words.

I have a jar of E85 with a steel fuel line, rubber fuel line, a piece of aluminum, a piece of brass, and a PVC fitting. After 11 months everything still looks great. I kept hearing stories about E85 eating fuel systems up so I gathered up parts that would go in a fuel system and put them in a jar full of E85.
 
Originally Posted By: MC5W20
Also, I would like to add, cattle grown in this country whether on feed lots or small farms are fed for weight gain. Not any consideration for natural diet. There is a niche market for that but it is not worth mentioning. Also, distillers grain has been fed to livestock for as long as humans have been making beer. Thousands of years.


i like Australian beef. fed from true blue GRASS (well mostly)
 
I think E85 can be done. The octane rating is as good as race fuel. Imagine the tuning that could be done to get more power and economy out of E85. [censored] if Brazil can make their own fuel form waste and sugar we can too. We spew enough [censored] to make fuel for the whole world.
crackmeup2.gif
 
Problem is that you don't do it with sugar.

Yep, Octane is through the roof. Energy density Sux.

Petition Monsanto to make a temperate sugar cane, and get you farmers to grow it...

LOL, the system works the other way.

Monsanto and the growers petition the Govt to mandate the least efficient way of getting ethanol into your tanks.

Makes the moneygoround spin like a short circuited energy meter 'though.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Problem is that you don't do it with sugar.

Yep, Octane is through the roof. Energy density Sux.

Petition Monsanto to make a temperate sugar cane, and get you farmers to grow it...



Our local area has had some success with sugar beet test plots. The main problem seems to be weather. Sugar beets like cooler summer temperatures. Our warmer summers make them wilt a bit at a time they should be packing on the sugar weight.

The best hope is a GM beet with heat and drought resistance. The greenies don't like this though. They're afraid GM sugar would be mixed into the food supply (which might happen, google Starlink corn).
 
Plus it will vapor lock older fuel systems which I did read a case of one so far.The IRL uses this fuel and this is the only motorsport that does.There were some E 85 plants in Michigan and are closed down now
 
You get whacked at the gas pump with ethanol, and it does interrupt the engines ability to burn more efficiently. Case in point. The move from E0 to 10% takes the average vehicle down about 10-15% in miles per gallon. All you need to do is calculate the loss in MPG's with the amount of vehicles driven on the road to see the hit is substantial. If they move to 15% or 20% you will lose another 10% of fuel economy. So the calculated loss of every vehicle of about 25% loss in MPG's means that a vehicle that once had a 20 MPG rating at E0 is now at 15. The loss is massive!

Do not believe what you are being told by the special interest groups. They will tell whatever the public wants to hear to line their pockets with cash. We believe they should not consider any additional ethanol in fuel. Furthermore., we request that they remove the 10% mandated, since it clearly is destructive to the economy and the environment.
 
I disagree with E10 dropping MPG by 10%. Simply put, this is saying that the ethanol has absolutely zero heat energy, which we know is not true. While there might be a slight MPG loss, 10% less is not believeable. My Jeep might lose at worst case scenario 1 MPG, but my fuel mileage is all over the place anyhow. That engine is very sensitive to outside air temperature, and in a vehicle with the aerodynamics of a loaf of bread, even a slight headwind can impact the MPG worse than adding 10% ethanol.
 
It would be great if we could separate fact from fiction.

I personally ran PURE 100% alcohol in VW Beetles in Brazil in the '80s. They ran fine. Teardowns at 250K miles showed very clean engines with minimal wear. I don't even think they were modified for the running of alcohol in any way. Of course, and engine without much in the way of sensors, let's just say it can go a long way.

It's true that politics are always in the way... we should be importing the stuff from Brazil at 59 cents a gallon. Some of you are going to pull your hair out saying, "What? Replace an oil sheik with an ethanol one???" To which I reply, "So what?"

But since we have a strong corn lobby, this is what we get.

I could go on for 10 pages, but I need to get back to work...
 
It's not just the reduced energy content. A modern car operating in closed loop mode will force the mixture a bit rich due to the extra oxygen from the alcohol.

Along the same lines, emissions are hurt also. The extra fuel burned more than offsets the reduction in emissions from the ethanol. The ethanol is only an aid to reducing emissions if the car is carbureted, has an open loop only fuel injection system, or is operating in open loop.

Ed
 
bmwtechguy the reason it cures your preignition problem is because e-85 is 105 octane, i experience spark knock with my 4.3l cpi vortec v-6 in my bowtie on 87, 89, or even 91 octane I have been running 100% 105 octane E-85 for a few months now, no problem with that since. BTW, this motor is a 1993 pre-e-85 flex fuel have not ran into a single problem with seals, hoses anything
 
Your 1st gen CPI Vortec has a knock sensor. Unusual that it would spark knock on even premium fuel. Only thing that I can see causing this is a failed knock sensor, or base ignition timing incorrectly set, or a inoperative EGR valve.
 
Originally Posted By: Mustang2008Z
We would be able to undercut OPEC even with their decreased production of crude oil. That would end their monopoly and then we could use their oil production to our advantage (USA Advantage)


FYI, OPEC technically isn't a monopoly.
 
I used to despise ethanol too. Though it still doesn't make much sense since the actual yield is miles less than gasoline (takes more energy to produce the stuff).

Just out of curiosity I started filling my supercharged '01 Frontier 3.3L with E85. First tankful was about 50/50 and I lost 1-2 mpg. Subsequent tanks were 100% E85, and I'm down to 14.5mpg from 17. This is with 95% highway driving (70mph).

Given that E85 sells for 1.799 here, and premium that the vehicle requires costing 2.399, I'm saving approximately 25% in fuel costs. My resulting gas mileage is only about 15% lower, a net gain.

No CEL or driveability issues. Decrease in power is noticeable, but the truck has plenty of power to begin with. I sometimes wonder if open-loop startup operation is better than closed-loop.

I believe closed-loop promotes complete combustion in either E85 or gasoline as it maintains that the level of oxygen emitted (complete combustion?) is at a constant level relative to atmospheric oxygen.

It is open loop operation that concerns me, because the ECU will pick the AFR off the map designed for gasoline at WOT. This might create a lean condition in the worst of scenarios (wide open throttle). Is my thinking flawed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top